DOCSLIB.ORG

Stare Decisis in the German Legal System – a Systematically Inconsistent Concept with High Factual Importance

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Stare Decisis in the German Legal System – a Systematically Inconsistent Concept with High Factual Importance Pobrane z czasopisma Studia Iuridica Lublinensia http://studiaiuridica.umcs.pl Data: 27/05/2021 15:38:02 Part 4. Studia Iuridica Lublinensia vol. XXVII, 1, 2018 DOI: 10.17951/sil.2018.27.1.121 Peter Stainer Attorney-at-law, Frankfurt am Main, Germany [email protected] Dominik König Inhouse legal counsel, Bad Homburg, Germany [email protected] The Concept of Stare Decisis in the German Legal System – A Systematically Inconsistent Concept with High Factual Importance Koncepcja stare decisis w systemie prawa niemieckiego – niespójna systemowo koncepcja posiadająca wysoką realną wartość SUMMARY It is worth mentioning that the German legal system is based on the codified law. This system lacks in stare decisis and precedentsUMCS in general, which – in principle – does not raise doubts. The role of precedent in the decisional process is relative and dependent on the question as to whether the case may be resolved pursuant to a legal act. In that case, precedents would not play any or almost any role at all. However, the role of precedents increases, when there is a lack of appropriate legal rights, or if legal rights require inter- pretation. It should be emphasised that stare decisis understood as a formally binding precedent refers only to rulings issued by the Federal Constitutional Court, whereas precedents of higher courts have a significant meaning to everyday judicial practice in Germany, despite the fact that they are not formally binding. Keywords: stare decisis; precedent; German legal system; Federal Constitutional Court INTRODUCTION Stare decisis is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase stare decisis et non quieta movere, meaning “to stand by decisions and not to disturb settled matters”1. This essay will first give a brief draft of the evolvement of the German civil law sys- 1 T. Lundmark, Umgang mit dem Präjudizienrecht, JuS 2000, p. 546 (548). Pobrane z czasopisma Studia Iuridica Lublinensia http://studiaiuridica.umcs.pl Data: 27/05/2021 15:38:02 122 Peter Stainer, Dominik König tem2, decide whether stare decisis (in the sense of a binding precedent) has a sys- tematically coherent place in the German legal system, and where it might be of relevance even without being consistent with German legal doctrine. EU law and the judgments of European courts will not be subject of this analysis. THE GERMAN LEGAL SYSTEM AS A CLASSIC CIVIL LAW SYSTEM IN THE ROMAN LAW TRADITION 1. Evolution of German private law To better understand the relation between Roman law and today’s German priva- te law, it is helpful to recapitulate the process of Reception (i.e., the rediscovery and amendment of ancient Roman law) in medieval continental Europe. Around the 11th century A.D., the rediscovery of Roman law triggered an unprecedented scholarly analysis, evolution, and advancement of the ancient law. The ancient texts were studied and taught at universities in northern Italy (notably in Bologna) and – later – annotated and commented to solve contradictions between different sources and to establish underlying principles, thereby harmonizing the texts. The annotations are commonly referred to as glosses, their authors as glossators. Since the scholars and graduates of these universities often assumed positions of power within gover- nment, church and administration, a “common law” – the ius commune – gradually extended across the European continent, albeit with stark regional differences in its implementation and application. During the period of Enlightenment, when the idea of natural law led to critical scrutiny of the ius commune, and the emerging nations were eager toUMCS have their laws codified, the ius commune fragmented even more. Nonetheless, it represents a historical cornerstone of modern European codes, such as the French Code Civil or the German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (BGB)3. 2. Evolution of German criminal law As with private law, criminal law – both procedural and material – was highly fragmented throughout the countless sovereign territories within the Holy Roman Empire4. However, the first (subsidiary5) penal law code for the entire Holy Roman 2 For the sake of clarity, “civil law” refers to a codified legal system (synonymous to “code law”). The law governing relation between individuals will be referred to as “private law”. 3 Cf. B. Häcker, Das englische Common Law – Eine Einführung, JuS 2014, pp. 872–876. 4 H. de With, In memoriam Bambergensis und Carolina, NJW 1982, p. 1440. 5 The Constitutio Criminalis Carolina included a clause that allowed regional rulers to continue to use their former penal laws. Cf. M. Hirte, R. Hübsch, Einführung in die ältere Strafrechtsgeschichte, JA 2009, p. 606 (610). Pobrane z czasopisma Studia Iuridica Lublinensia http://studiaiuridica.umcs.pl Data: 27/05/2021 15:38:02 The Concept of Stare Decisis in the German Legal System… 123 Empire, the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina was ratified in 1532 – long before such efforts were accounted for in private law6. Furthermore, the Carolina, as it is commonly abbreviated, proved to be a success – increasingly accepted by the territories, it remained in force for over 300 years. The last judgments based on the Carolina are accounted for in the 19th century7. In 1871, the newly founded German Empire received a uniform penal code, the Reichsstrafgesetzbuch, which is the basis for today’s Strafgesetzbuch (StGB). 3. Key differences between common law and civil law The most prominent difference between today’s civil law systems and common law systems is that the latter lacks – with particular exceptions – a categorical codification of its laws. Consequently, wherever the legislature did not make an effort to codify a certain area of the law, evolvement and development of the law was – and is to this day – entirely determined by case law, i.e., the finding of justice is not primarily based on interpretation and application of statutes or codes, but rather on tradition and precedent8. Every new case extends the body of case law, and the reasoning from case to case contributes to the incremental development of the law9. New or even yet unknown advancements of society – technological, social or other – do not require anticipation by the legislature, common law judges may “cross the river when they come to it”10. Extensive statutory provisions are therefore rather rare. Quite the contrary is true for the German civil law system: the German system is a code system. There are, apart from constitutional adjudication, no strict rules on the binding force of precedents and it is not a common practice to categorize different kinds of precedents according to their bindingness. Rather, it is discussed how strongUMCS the binding force of precedents is in general, or if there is any binding force at all11. Without a provision, there is no law. This legal principle is strictly applied in the area of criminal law, where Article 103 § 2 of the German Constitution Section 1 of the German Penal Code (Strafgesetzbuch) states that there is no punishment without law. This is also true for German administrative law, where any infringement of a citizen’s right by the government or the administration must be based on a statute or provision allowing for such infringement. This principle is 6 It should, however, be noted that the Constitutio Criminalis Carolina did cover some aspects of private law as well. 7 H. de With, op. cit., p. 1440. 8 U. Karpen, Rechtssetzungslehre, JuS 2016, p. 577 (579). 9 B. Häcker, op. cit., p. 872 (874 ff.). 10 U. Karpen, op. cit., p. 577 (579). 11 Cf. A. Dreier, Precedent in the Federal Republic of Germany, [in:] Interpreting Precedents: A Comparative Study, eds. N. MacCormick, R.S. Summers, A.L. Goodhart, London 1997, p. 24. Pobrane z czasopisma Studia Iuridica Lublinensia http://studiaiuridica.umcs.pl Data: 27/05/2021 15:38:02 124 Peter Stainer, Dominik König laid out by Article 20 § 3 of the German Constitution12. This principle is softened with regard to matters of private law, however, the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch with its concept to define very broad legal principles in its general sections has proven to be able to cope with change and advancements of society quite well. 4. The meaning of precedent in the context of stare decisis Precedents (Präjudizien) are the subject of stare decisis. They are usually taken to mean any prior decision possibly relevant to a present case to be decided. The notion presupposes some kind of bindingness but lacks a determination about the nature or the strength of that bindingness. Neither is it necessary for a deciding court to expressly adopts or formulates a decision to guide future decision making in order to qualify it as a precedent. Being relevant for any future decision is sufficient13. 5. Principal inconsistency of stare decisis with the German legal system As a consequence of the foregoing, the concept of stare decisis – i.e., a binding judicial precedent – is, in principle, inconsistent with the German civil law system that allots the development and advancement of the law to statutes, codes and pro- visions, i.e., the legislative branch, leaving little to no room for case law. However, Germany’s legal system is not prone to “blind positivism”14. Besides the interpreta- tion of code law (Gesetzesauslegung), the further development of the law by judges (richterliche Rechtsfortbildung, which is a technical term) is nowadays universally accepted as one of the core tasks of the German judicial branch15. Richterliche Rechtsfortbildung is codified in Section 132 § 4 of the German Courts Constitution Act (GerichtsverfassungsgesetzUMCS – GVG) and empowers Federal Judges (and only those) to further develop the law. Ironically enough, the concept of richterliche Rechtsfortbildung originated in case law itself, through the German Federal Court ruling from 195116 (making reference to Article 20 § 3 of the German Constitu- tion), and conceding rulings of the German Federal Constitutional Court in 195317, 12 For a more in-depth analysis cf.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Germany (1950-2018)
    Germany Self-rule INSTITUTIONAL DEPTH AND POLICY SCOPE Germany has two-tiered regional governance consisting of sixteen Länder and (Land)Kreise. Several Länder have a third tier between these two, Regierungsbezirke (administrative districts). Two Länder have a fourth tier of regional governance, Landschaftsverbände in North-Rhine Westphalia and Bezirksverband Pfalz in Rhineland-Palatinate.1 The 1949 Basic Law of the German Federal Republic granted eleven Länder extensive competences, which include legislative powers for culture, education, universities, broadcasting/television, local government, and the police (C 1949, Art. 74; Council of Europe: Germany 1999; Hrbek 2002; Swenden 2006; Watts 1999a, 2008). Länder also exercise residual competences (C 1949, Art. 70). In addition, the Basic Law states that Länder are responsible for the implementation of most federal laws (C 1949, Arts. 83–85). The federal government may legislate to preserve legal and economic unity with respect to justice, social welfare, civil law, criminal law, labor law, and economic law (C 1949, Art 72.2), and it has authority to establish the legislative framework in higher education, the press, environmental protection, and spatial planning (C 1949, Art. 72.3; Reutter 2006). The federal government exercises sole legislative authority over foreign policy, defense, currency, and public services (C 1949, Art. 73; Council of Europe: Germany 1999; Hrbek 2002; Swenden 2006; Watts 1999a, 2008). It also has exclusive authority over immigration and citizenship (C 1949, Arts. 73.2 and 73.3), though Länder administer inter-Land immigration and have concurrent competence on residence (Bendel and Sturm 2010: 186-187; C 1949, Arts. 74.4 and 74.6).2 However, this is not enough to qualify for the maximum score on policy scope.β The constitutional division of authority was extended to the five new Länder after unification in 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of Stare Decisis in the German Legal System – a Systematically Inconsistent Concept with High Factual Importance
    Pobrane z czasopisma Studia Iuridica Lublinensia http://studiaiuridica.umcs.pl Data: 01/10/2021 21:41:15 Part 4. Studia Iuridica Lublinensia vol. XXVII, 1, 2018 DOI: 10.17951/sil.2018.27.1.121 Peter Stainer Attorney-at-law, Frankfurt am Main, Germany [email protected] Dominik König Inhouse legal counsel, Bad Homburg, Germany [email protected] The Concept of Stare Decisis in the German Legal System – A Systematically Inconsistent Concept with High Factual Importance Koncepcja stare decisis w systemie prawa niemieckiego – niespójna systemowo koncepcja posiadająca wysoką realną wartość SUMMARY It is worth mentioning that the German legal system is based on the codified law. This system lacks in stare decisis and precedentsUMCS in general, which – in principle – does not raise doubts. The role of precedent in the decisional process is relative and dependent on the question as to whether the case may be resolved pursuant to a legal act. In that case, precedents would not play any or almost any role at all. However, the role of precedents increases, when there is a lack of appropriate legal rights, or if legal rights require inter- pretation. It should be emphasised that stare decisis understood as a formally binding precedent refers only to rulings issued by the Federal Constitutional Court, whereas precedents of higher courts have a significant meaning to everyday judicial practice in Germany, despite the fact that they are not formally binding. Keywords: stare decisis; precedent; German legal system; Federal Constitutional Court INTRODUCTION Stare decisis is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase stare decisis et non quieta movere, meaning “to stand by decisions and not to disturb settled matters”1.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Monitoring Committee)
    Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Monitoring Committee) Original: English CG-MON(2020)17-03prov Restricted 22 June 2020 Monitoring of the European Charter of Local Self-Government in Austria Rapporteurs1 : Marc COOLS, Belgium (L, ILDG) Andrew DISMORE, United-Kingdom (R, SOC/G/PD) Preliminary draft recommendation ................................................................................................................ 2 Draft explanatory memorandum .................................................................................................................... 5 Summary This report is prepared following the second monitoring visit to Austria since the country ratified the Charter in 1987. It welcomes the constitutional and legal recognition and substantial implementation of the principle of local self-government in Austria, the introduction of the Länder Administrative Courts to strengthen the Austrian federalism, the extension of the competences of the associations of local authorities to cooperate and the reforms carried out since 2011 with a view to clarifying the distribution of competences between the Federation, the Länder and local authorities. The adoption of the New Government Plan with the objective, among other things, to tackle some of the outstanding issues reflected in this report has also been welcomed. At the same time, the rapporteurs stress that in Austria, there is still a high degree of complexity in the allocation of
    [Show full text]
  • Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft in Respect of Non-Equity Securities Within the Meaning of Art
    Base Prospectus 17 November 2020 This document constitutes the base prospectus of Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft in respect of non-equity securities within the meaning of Art. 2 (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 14, 2017 (the “Prospectus Regulation”) for the purposes of Article 8(1) of the Prospectus Regulation (the “Base Prospectus”). Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft (Cologne, Federal Republic of Germany) as Issuer EUR 4,000,000,000 Debt Issuance Programme (the “Programme”) In relation to notes issued under this Programme, application has been made to the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (the “CSSF”) of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (“Luxembourg”) in its capacity as competent authority under the Luxembourg act relating to prospectuses for securities dated 16 July 2019 (Loi du 16 juillet 2019 relative aux prospectus pour valeurs mobilières et portant mise en oeuvre du règlement (UE) 2017/1129, the “Luxembourg Law”) for approval of this Base Prospectus. The CSSF only approves this Base Prospectus as meeting the standards of completeness, comprehensibility and consistency imposed by the Prospectus Regulation. Such approval should not be considered as an endorsement of the economic or financial opportunity of the operation or the quality and solvency of the Issuer or of the quality of the Notes that are the subject of this Base Prospectus. Investors should make their own assessment as to the suitability of investing in the Notes. By approving this Base Prospectus, the CSSF does not assume any responsibility as to the economic and financial soundness of any issue of Notes under the Programme and the quality or solvency of the Issuer.
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Constitutional Law: a Comparison Between Germany and South Africa
    Financial constitutional law: A comparison between Germany and South Africa DIRK BRAND KONRAD-ADENAUER-STIFTUNG • OCCASIONAL PAPERS • JOHANNESBURG • NOVEMBER 2006 © KAS, 2006 All rights reserved While copyright in this publication as a whole is vested in the Konrad-Adenauer- Stiftung, copyright in the text rests with the individual authors, and no paper may be reproduced in whole or part without the express permission, in writing, of both authors and the publisher. It should be noted that any opinions expressed are the responsibility of the individual authors and that the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung does not necessarily subscribe to the opinions of contributors. ISBN: 0-9802543-2-9 Published by: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung 60 Hume Road Dunkeld 2196 Johannesburg Republic of South Africa PO Box 1383 Houghton 2041 Johannesburg Republic of South Africa Telephone: (+27 +11) 214-2900 Telefax: (+27 +11) 214-2913/4 E-mail: [email protected] www.kas.org.za Editing, DTP and production: Tyrus Text and Design Printing: Stups Printing Acknowledgements The author would like to express his sincere appreciation to the Konrad- Adenauer-Stiftung for the publication of this study as well as to the University of Stellenbosch, which gave permission for the publication. iii The author Dr Dirk Brand* was a constitutional advisor in the Western Cape Provincial Government from the end of 1995 and was, among other things, coordinator of a team of technical advisors responsible for the drafting of the Western Cape Provincial Constitution, 1998. As legal advisor, Brand’s responsibilities included the drafting of legislation, such as the Western Cape Languages Act, 1998, as well as legal opinions on a variety of issues.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Supreme Finance Court
    Der Bundesfinanzhof The Federal Supreme Finance Court (English Edition) Contents I. Introduction 4 II. The history of the Federal Supreme Finance Court 1. The period up to 1918 7 2. Establishment of the Reich Supreme Finance Court 8 3. The period from 1933 to 1945 12 4. The Presidents of the Reich Supreme Finance Court 12 5. The Supreme Fiscal Court 13 6. Establishment of the Federal Supreme Finance Court 13 7. The Presidents of the Federal Supreme Finance Court 14 III. The structure of fiscal jurisdiction 1. The arrangement of courts in the Federal Republic of Germany 16 2. Fiscal jurisdiction 17 IV. The organisation of the Federal Supreme Finance Court 1. The individual senates 20 2. The Large Senate 22 3. The Joint Senate of the Supreme Federal Courts 23 V. Procedure at the Federal Supreme Finance Court 1. The individual remedies a) Revision 24 b) Appeals against denial of leave to appeal 25 c) Objections 25 d) Applications 26 2. Compulsory representation 26 3. Parties to the proceedings 26 VI. How cases are handled at the Federal Supreme Finance Court 1. Registration and preliminary handling 29 2. Preparation of proceedings 29 3. Deliberation and voting 30 4. Decisions 30 5. Announcements of the decisions 33 VII. The workload of the Federal Supreme Finance Court Settlement and duration of cases 34 VIII. Significance of Federal Supreme Finance Court decisions; their publication 1. Adjudication on specific cases 36 2. Leading decisions 36 3. Publication a) Decisions bound for publication 37 b) Decisions not bound for publication 38 c) Pending proceedings 39 IX.
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime Arrest Legal Reflections on the International Arrest Conventions and on Domestic Law in Germany and Sweden
    University of Stockholm Faculty of Law Maritime Arrest Legal Reflections on the International Arrest Conventions and on Domestic Law in Germany and Sweden Thesis for obtaining the degree of a “Master of International Law” with specialization in Maritime and Transport Law (LL.M.) Andree Kirchner 6 March 2001 Supervisor: Professor Dr. Hugo Tiberg Director, Axel Ax:son Johnsons Institut för Sjörätt och annan Transporträtt Maritime Arrest CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................III Andree Kirchner I. THE ARREST CONVENTIONS............................................................................................ 2 A. THE 1952 ARREST CONVENTION.............................................................................................2 B. THE 1999 ARREST CONVENTION.............................................................................................8 II. GERMANY............................................................................................................................ 14 A. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................14 B. MARITIME ARREST...............................................................................................................15 1. Requirements of Arrest.................................................................................................... 15 a) Claim of Arrest ............................................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • Country Compendium
    Country Compendium A companion to the English Style Guide July 2021 Translation © European Union, 2011, 2021. The reproduction and reuse of this document is authorised, provided the sources and authors are acknowledged and the original meaning or message of the texts are not distorted. The right holders and authors shall not be liable for any consequences stemming from the reuse. CONTENTS Introduction ...............................................................................1 Austria ......................................................................................3 Geography ................................................................................................................... 3 Judicial bodies ............................................................................................................ 4 Legal instruments ........................................................................................................ 5 Government bodies and administrative divisions ....................................................... 6 Law gazettes, official gazettes and official journals ................................................... 6 Belgium .....................................................................................9 Geography ................................................................................................................... 9 Judicial bodies .......................................................................................................... 10 Legal instruments .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • European Rule of Law Mechanism
    European Rule of Law Mechanism Austrian Input European Rule of Law Mechanism Austrian Input Vienna, May 2020 Imprint Austrian Federal Chancellery Ballhausplatz 2, 1010 Vienna +43 1 531 15-0 [email protected] bundeskanzleramt.gv.at Design: BKA Design & Grafik Vienna, 2020 Contents Introduction 5 I Justice System 7 A Independence 8 B Quality of justice 15 C Efficiency of the justice system 18 II Anti-corruption framework 25 A The institutional framework capacity to fight against corruption (prevention and investigation / prosecution) 25 B Prevention 28 C Repressive measures 37 III Media Pluralism 42 A Media regulatory authorities and bodies 43 B Transparency of media ownership and government interference 45 C Framework for journalists’ protection 47 IV Other institutional issues related to checks and balances 50 A The process for preparing and enacting laws 50 B Independent authorities 53 C Accessibility and judicial review of administrative decisions 58 D The enabling framework for civil society 61 Introduction Respect for the rule of law in the Member States and the Union is an important foun- dation for the cooperation within the EU. There can be no compromises on European fundamental values. In its 2020–2024 programme, the Austrian Federal Government emphasises the importance of respecting fundamental European values, advocates strengthening the instruments for safeguarding the rule of law at European level and provides for a number of initiatives at national level. Austria strongly supports the new Rule of Law Cycle proposed by the European Commis- sion in July 2019 and considers the regular and systematic review of all Member States to be an essential step towards strengthening the rule of law.
    [Show full text]
  • BO-ECLI Conference Implementation of the European Case Law Identifier
    Federal Office of Justice BO-ECLI Conference Implementation of the European Case Law Identifier in Germany ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2017:rk20170125.2bvr255716 ECLI:DE:BGH:2017:190117BIZB94.16.0 ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2017:120117B1B115.16.0 ECLI:DE:BFH:2017:U.301116.VR48.15.0 ECLI:DE:BAG:2017:151216.U.6AZR430.15.0 ECLI:DE:BSG:2017:250117UB3P215R0 CC-RIS June 8, 2017 Federal Office of Justice National ECLI coordinator Bundesamt für Justiz [Federal Office of Justice] Kompetenzzentrum Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundes [Federal Competence Centre - Legal Information System] (CC-RIS) Adenauerallee 99-103 53113 Bonn Germany Phone: +49 228 99 410-5801 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.bundesjustizamt.de CC-RIS June 8, 2017 Federal Office of Justice Implementation at Federal Level court assignment of ECLI allocation for the EU crawler Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) implemented in 2015 yes (2016) Federal Court of Justice (BGH) implemented in 2016 to be done Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) implemented in 2013 yes Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) implemented in 2016 to be done Federal Labour Court (BAG) implemented in 2015 to be done Federal Social Court (BSG) implemented in 3/2017 to be done Federal Patent Court (BPatG) implementation planned to be done CC-RIS Page: 3 June 8, 2017 Federal Office of Justice ECLI-identifiers at Federal Level ECLI country court year of the ordinal number code code decision Federal ECLI : DE : BVerfG : 2017 : rk20170125.2bvr255716 Constitutional Court Federal Court ECLI : DE : BGH : 2017 : 190117BIZB94.16.0
    [Show full text]
  • Kuj - Englisch - Seiten001-800.Indb 1 05.08.2008 19:32:16 Ef - Kuj - Englisch - Seiten001-800.Indb 2 05.08.2008 19:32:26 Child and Youth Policy
    Child and Youth Policy Child and Youth Services in the Federal Republic of Germany Structures – Institutions – Organisations ef - kuj - englisch - seiten001-800.indb 1 05.08.2008 19:32:16 ef - kuj - englisch - seiten001-800.indb 2 05.08.2008 19:32:26 Child and Youth Policy Child and Youth Services in the Federal Republic of Germany Structures – Institutions – Organisations New edition expanded and updated for 2008 By: Stefan Becsky Marie-Luise Dreber Dirk Hänisch with the assistance of: Katrin Althoetmar ef - kuj - englisch - seiten001-800.indb 3 05.08.2008 19:32:26 IJAB – Fachstelle für Internationale Jugendarbeit der Bundesrepublik Deutschland e. V. [IJAB – In- ternational Youth Service of the Federal Republic of Germany] (formerly: International Youth Exchange and Visitors’ Service of the Federal Republic of Germany) works in the fi elds of international youth work, in- ternational youth policy and youth information. The expert agency works on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMFSFJ), its member organisations and other central child and youth service providers. IJAB’s range of services includes the organisation of worldwide programmes for children and youth service professionals in the context of the bilateral youth policy relations of the Federal Republic of Germany, train- ing and qualifi cation for professionals from a wide spectrum of providers as well as a comprehensive range of information and consultation services on all matters of international youth work. With its activities, the expert agency wants to make a contribution to the mutual understanding of young people from various countries and cultures, to promote the acquisition of intercultural skills, to support non- formal education processes and to strengthen the international knowledge transfer in the fi eld of child and youth services and child and youth policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Germany (Numbers of 2017), a Total of 17000 Are Members of the DRB
    CCJE-BU(2020)1 Strasbourg, 29 January 2020 CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN JUDGES (CCJE) Questionnaire for the preparation of the CCJE Opinion No. 23 (2020): “The role of the Associations of Judges in supporting the judicial independence” Please in your answers do not send extracts of your legislation but describe the situation in brief and concise manner. General 1. How many Associations of Judges (please note that they can have different names) exist in your country? a) For judges of all jurisdictions and all court levels: 2 b) For judges of certain jurisdictions only: 1 for administrative court judges c) For judges of certain court levels only: 1 for the magistrate/district court judges d) Are there Associations of Judges on some other criteria (i.e. women judges): 0 (only 1 for female lawyers in general, not restricted to judges, “djb”) Total number of all types of Associations of Judges: … Other objectives _____ It is difficult to determine the number of Associations of Judges. 1 The biggest Association of Judges is the Deutsche Richterbund (DRB). It is the oldest Association (founded on 1.1.1909). It is a national member association. This Association has national member associations with respective sub associations/regional divisions on state level or divisions for highest federal courts. It consists of 25 respective sub associations. 16 of the sub associations belong to the federal states; 5 sub associations belong to the highest federal courts (Bundesgerichtshof – Federal Court of Justice/ Generalbundesanwalt – Federal Prosecutor General, Bundesarbeitsgericht – Federal Labour Court, Bundessozialgericht – Federal Social Court, Bundesfinanzhof – Federal Fiscal Court and the Bundespatentgericht – Federal Patent Court).
    [Show full text]